VICHARA VEDIKE ON HINDUTVA

Hi!

Team CRI have just launched Swarajya! Check it out!

“What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.”

Robert F. Kennedy

An overview:

They say, “If politics is a product of its times, politicians are its brand managers and ambassadors. They are the face on the poster, the smile in the crowd, the promises, the folded hands, the five year wonders of our parliamentary democracy”. In the wake of the crisis hauling up the UPA government for more than two years, the government continues to choose not to be constructive enough, thereby doing a great disservice to their electorate. Many opinion polls have made their ways to check with the scorning ‘aam-aadmi’ whether the government will survive the storm till 2014, and as it occurs, if not the UPA, the ball may actually fall in the court of the two ‘polarising’ figures of the NDA– Mr. Narendra Modi and Mr. L. K. Advani. But it’s apparent that with both of them comes into picture the baggage — the very conspicuous central theme of their ideological agenda viz; The Hindutva. And when the biggest opposition party in the country stoops to the ‘election-eve-patriotism’ and make numerous attempts to fight their elections on the basis of the ideological issue, it becomes crucially weighty to understand the purpose and the intent of the term ‘Hindutva’.

Many of us are still unaware of the fact that the ideology of Hindutva was propounded by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923 in his pamphlet entitled Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? which is the set of movements advocating ‘Hindu nationalism‘. True, Savarkar’s ideology gave a false halo of heroism to the bigheads of the Sangh Parivar who champion the concept of Hindutva, often melding and fusing it with ‘Hindu- fanaticism’. The problem with Hindutva is, few understand its essence, what it stands for. It is one of those terms which have been unhealthily garbled to reek of something it does not mean. And as one gets to the length and the breadth of this insidiously sordid term, it occurs to me, it is not all that bad. In fact, I am totally in accord with one of my friend who in a chat conversation once said, “Hindutva is the only answer when someone asks me ‘What does it mean to be an Indian? Is it just the people living within the international border or is it something beyond that?” Going by the famous 1995 Supreme Court of India’s judgement, the word ‘Hindutva’ does not necessarily mean ‘Hinduism’. Hindutva is more about “the way of the life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos.”

Its quiet disreputable that the umbrella organizations like Sang Parivar mistake their own ideology for fanaticism, which is quite evident in their public meetings when their followers chant “Hindutva ka josh rashtra ka tiranga, Dono ko saath leke bhagwa vapas aayega” (the tricolor expresses the strength of Hindutva. If the two march together it will ensure the return of the saffron flag). “We are a part of a continuing civilization, which is thousands of years old. Hindutva, in essence means, that we don’t lose touch with it. It is true that the sub-continent was mostly Hindu, more than 95% before coming of Islam to India. So naturally, our culture will have a major component derived from Hindu religion.” says the same friend on the chat.

Essence of Hinduism:

The pretentious secularists in the country provide a for-instance of their jaundiced eyes when false pride is taken in mentioning the caste label every now and then. “Even our President was Muslim”, “Our Prime Minister is Sikh”. They never fail to degrade even the people of eminence with the likes of the President and the Prime Minister, by the distorted version of this pseudo- secular hypocrisy. What they tend to forget is that the religions of the world – Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism – are the great binding forces. Interestingly, unlike any other religion mentioned above, there isn’t any ‘ism’ — a distinctive doctrine, system or theory attached with ‘Hindu-ism’. Neither do the major scriptures of Hinduism The Vedas, The Upanishads, The Purāṇas, The Mahābhārata, The Rāmāyaṇa, The Bhagavad Gītā and The Āgamascoerce theheresy on its followers. Hinduism is uniquely all-welcoming, all-embracing faith around the world, so to say. In one of his books ‘The Elephant, The Tiger and The Cellphone’ sharing his ‘Ideas of Indianness’ Shashi Tharoor says, “Ever since the days of antiquity, there have been two distinct attitudes with Hinduism about the nature of the faith. One was steeped in ritual, superstition and exclusion, with a tightly knit priestly class who preserved themselves the prerogatives of control over the tenets and the institutions of the faith. The other was questioning, exploring, reformist, acknowledging the wonders of Creation and welcoming all attempts to stretch out one’s hands and minds to the Divine. The former led to the construction of a religious tradition so stepped in iniquity and obscurantism that is directly promoted the challenges of Mahavira Jaina and Gautama Buddha, both of whom essentially started as Hindu reformers. The latter school learned from the challenges, absorbed their beliefs within the Hindu fold, and elaborated the doctrine of ‘sarvadharma sambhava‘. This was Hinduism of Vivekananda, who argued that the essence of both worship were equally valid — indeed that all religions were true. This is why there is no compulsory Hindu dogma, no single Hindu holy book, no Hindu Pope.”

Likewise, great people with the likes of Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa, Swami Vivekananda, Guru Nanak Dev, Santh Kabir, Gandhi, regarded all religions as different paths to the same goal, “My religion is Hinduism which, for me, is religion if humanity — I am being led to other religions through truth and non-violence i.e. love in the broadest sense… we are all sparks of the Truth, I am being led nearer to it by constant prayer”, said Gandhi. He believed in no dogma or rituals wherever you are, you hear the echo: “Raghupati Raghava… Ishwar Allah Tero Naam!” says Gandhi who epitomized ultimate secularism.

The curious case of Savarkar and Dr. Subramanian Swamy:

A lot has been said and gone down the drain when it comes to the interpretation of V.D. Savarkar’s brain child ‘Hindutva’. While Savarkar’s notions of ‘Hindu’ loyalty to the ‘Bharatvarsha‘ are often gauged as a ‘prototype’ of criticism of Muslims and Christians, it becomes of gravely important to see how the scholars, historians and the politicians have been looking at him. R.K. Dasgupta, an eminent scholar and former Director of the National Library of India argued about giving him a halo of a national figure. According to him it’s absolutely preposterous to sense him that way more than 50 years after the attainment of the freedom. He goes on to add, “Which Historian of India has called Savarkar a national figure? He has no presence in the serious political and historical literature of the country. There is no mention of him in the 945-page Oxford History of India published in 1958. Nehru does not mention him in his Autobiography and Subhas Chandra Bose too does not mention him in his two autobiographies. There is not a word on him in R.C. Majumdar, Hemchandra Raychaudhari and Kalikinkar Datta’s 1,222- page An Advanced History of India published in 1946. There is not even a passing reference to Savarkar in the 940- page The Role of Honour: Anecdotes of Indian Martyrs edited by K.C.Ghosh and published by the National Council of Education in 2002. Savarkar has, however, a strong presence in our books on communalism an instance of which is David Ludden’s Making India Hindu (1996)“.

Similarly, there have been instances in which Savarkar has often questioned the allegiance of the Muslims and Christians to the country. It has been a well known fact that Savarkar went on to claim that the Muslims and Christians don’t qualify to be as Hindus because merely living in the Indian Territory and being an Indian citizen is not sufficient for the membership to the ‘Hindu’ lot. Interestingly, according to him, even if their family has been rooted in the same village for centuries, they don’t capacitate as Hindus. Instead, he regarded them as the threat to the integrity of the country. Now this reminds of the very infamous DNA piece by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, How to wipe out Islamic Terror in which Swamy speaks of Muslims in the similar lines of Savarkar. To quote him, “We need a collective mindset as Hindus to stand against the Islamic terrorist. The Muslims of India can join us if they genuinely feel for the Hindu. That they do I will not believe unless they acknowledge with pride that though they may be Muslims, their ancestors were Hindus. If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is Hindustan. India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors were Hindus. Others, who refuse to acknowledge this, or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration, can remain in India but should not have voting rights (which means they cannot be elected representatives). While I detest Swamy’s vague solutions to combat terrorism through his five goals enlisted, I find it more farcical when he proposes the removal of the Masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites. It high time he realizes that when he asks the non-hindus to acknowledge their Hindu ancestry, he negates the Freedom of religion which in India is a fundamental rightguaranteed by the country’s constitution

BJP’s stratagem:

It is nothing new that BJP leaders are prone to circumlocution in their public speeches when asked about VHP’s Hindutva strategy that usually overshadows BJP. Be it the VHP’s failed attempt to demolish the tomb of Mughal general Afzal Khan, an enemy of Chhatrapti Shivaji at Pratapgadh in my home district, Satara, or be it the reconversion of around 200 Christians in Orissa to Hinduism which happened back in 2004, BJP has been seen denying its association with VHP. This self-contrasting mood of BJP when it comes to acknowledging the Sangh Parivar and VHP leadership is quite evident when issues like destroying the any place of worship, Babri Masjid for that matter, spreading hatred against other religions are mistaken as Hindutva.

In a bid to promote Narendra Modi, BJP is often seen to throw the Hindutva element, which is unfortunately considered as their ‘comprehensive’ game plan against the UPA government. Sonali Ranade, a famous trader in her piece on rediff ‘Hindutva is largely irrelevant to economic reforms‘ sums it up quite well. According to her “The BJP’s notion that we can take politics for granted while we push towards economic reforms by whichever means possible is questionable. The fact that the secularism is the bedrock of our constitution, its existence cannot be threatened through such polarization along religious faultiness of BJP”. Moreover she goes on to add, “When peace and normal politics is challenged, as being done by the Hindutva forces to mobilize its cadre, the issue becomes central and everything else, including reforms recede to insignificance. Although secularism doesn’t guarantee reforms, championing Hindutva to promote reforms will be utterly self- defeating. How Modi’s success in Gujarat translates into Hindutva per se being conducive to economic reforms remains an unexplainable mystery”.

With the national elections coming up in 2014, and the BJP and its associates found confounded with the BhartiyataAgenda, it would be interesting to see if the BJP’s principal focus would be on development issues and the ‘misrule’ of the Congress, for elections can never be fought on ideological issues. Hindutva in a larger picture cannot translate the tactics on the ground level. Like once Pramod Mahajan said in an interview “I am of a firm opinion that the ideological issues give you reasons to be in party and stay in that party. But you don’t fight elections on the ideological issues. Elections are fought, unless it is an abnormal election, on normal daily problems- bijlee, pani, sadak (electricity, water, roads). If there is something like Emergency or Ramjanmabhomi andolan, at those times’ the normal issues subside and emotional issues takeover. ”

The Road Ahead:

For over 65 years India has struggled to overcome the self-imposed impairment of prejudice and discrimination based on social class, religion. This is repugnant to the Gandhi’s visualization of India where there is no division by the virtue of religion, caste or language. To quote A. G. Noorani, “The last word must belong to Gandhi. At the famous Quit India Session of AICC on Aug 8. 1942 Gandhi said that the Hindus who, like Dr, Moonje and Shri Savarkar, believed in the doctrine of the sword may seek to keep the Musalmans under Hindu domination. For he does not represent that section. This is the fundamental divide between Gandhi and Savarkar’s heirs, the BJP”. Let us all take back the Hinduism from the fanatics, shape our society abolishing the bigoted caste practices, let us be ‘godless’ enough to avoid the intrusion of the Gods and Prophets in our lives, let us protect the principle of secularism enshrined by the constitution. Let us give the biggest tribute to the Hindutva by safeguarding the ‘principle of equality and opportunity’. Amen.

As you pointed out, there is a need to make a distinction between Hindutva and Hinduism. However, we must also acknowledge that it is Islamic fundamentalism that is giving rise to fundamentalist tendencies in all religions (thats Guha’s argument). Lets call a spade, a spade. Islam is causing troubles around the world. Here is a Intellegence Squared debate in New York on whether Islam is a religion of peace. http://www.youtube.com/watchv=rh34Xsq7D_A&feature=watch-vrec

Thats giving rise to the Hindutva elements too. I think its a bad idea to fight violence with non-violence. Gandhi suggested that to the Jews. Jews paid the price through holocaust.

It was Indira Gandhi who introduced the words Secular and Socialist in the constitution in the 1970s.

I fail to understand how merely accepting the fact that your forefathers were Hindus makes India a non-secular country.

Every effort to unite Hindu’s under the hindutva banner will not succeed as Hinduism inherently propogates inequality and inequality among human beings is unacceptable in a just progressive society. Presently Hinduism faces an existential crisis that can only be overcome by embracing tolerance and compassion towards all human beings irrespective of their caste, race or religion.

http://twitter.com/DelhiRIUM DelhiRIUM

Indian seculars are radical seculars. They are radical because they refuse to talk and acknowledge the inherent secular nature of Hinduism.

While fundamental rights give you the right to choose religion, the author should be asked whether such pluralism is allowed in any theological interpretation of Islam or Christianity.

@Swamy39 asked the above question while arguing for Hindus in the anti-conversion case in Himachal Pradesh. He in fact went on to say that for India to remain secular, Hindu majority is essential. Name one Islamic nation’s constitution that effuses the secularism and fundamental right that the author it talking about.

PMs of other ‘model’ developed countries like UK and Australia have said in public that their countries are Christian countries and the people should respect Christian values. So much for secularism.

The fact that the secularism is the bedrock of our constitution – Really Since when? Is Author aware of something prevalent in India called Caste Based Reservation?

http://twitter.com/himanshuprata_p himanshu pratap

all muslim have hindu ancestry in india..it is a fact,swamy not asking them to not follow there religion,they should follow islam but first they have to accept that they have hindu ancestry,,before critcising hindutav you should know that muslim and mohandas karamchand gandhi was the two reason for the formation of hindutav ideology,,so if you want to make hindutav followers to become secular or liberal than you must not use these two words in ur article gandhi and muslims,,

btw i want give some of answers of ur questions its also available here

Savarkar believed in universal brotherhood of man. In the first part of his autobiography he stated, ” I never myself hated nor did I allow others to hate English as Englishmen only as oppressors. Once India achieves its freedom we must forget any hatred for England. We are all creations of the same god.”

In his book describing harsh prison life – My Transportation for Life, Savarkar stated in 1923, ” I have no hatred in my heart for Muslim or Christian brothers or even for those living in tribes in primitive state. I do not even despise any of them. I oppose only that section of it vehemently which is oppressive and violent towards others.”
In the letter of 6 July 1920 he wrote to his brother from jail, ” We believe in an universal state embracing all mankind and wherein all men and women would be citizens working for and enjoying equally the fruits of this earth and this sun, this land and this light, which constitute the real Motherland and Fatherland of man. All other divisions are artificial though indispensable.”

Was Savarkar communal?

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines communal as .of or for a community, for the common use; of a commune, esp.that of Paris.. A community means a body of people having religion, profession etc. in common. ‘Commune’ is a group of persons not of same family, smallest division for an administrative purpose Communalism is the principle of communal organization of society.

In his address as the President of the Nagpur session of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha in 1938, Savarkar clarified the difference between communalism and nationalism. “Nationalism and Communalism are in themselves either equally justifiable and human or not. When nationalism becomes aggressive or when it tries to suppress the equitable rights of other communities and tries to usher all to itself , it is as immoral in human relations as is communalism.. But when communalism is only defensive, it is as justifiable and human or equitable as nationalism itself. The Hindu nationalists do not aim to usurp what belongs to others. Therefore even if they be called Hindu communalists, they are justifiably so and are about the only real Indian Nationalists for, a real and justifiable Indian Nationalism must be equitable to all communities that compose the Indian Nation. But for the same reason the Moslems alone are the communalists, in an anti-national and treacherous sense of the term. For, it is they who want to usurp to themselves all that belongs to others. The Indian National Congress only condemns itself as an anti-national body when it calls in the same breath the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League as bodies equally communal in the reprehensible and treacherous sense of that term. Consequently, if to defend the just and the equitable rights of the Hindus in their own land is communalism then we are communalists par excellence and glory in being the most devoted Hindu Communalists, which to us means being the truest and the most equitable Indian Nationalists! Savarkar never asked for special rights or privileges for the Hindus. Hence he was not communal, as the term is understood today. The Muslim League, with its unending, aggressive demands was communal. But its communalism was natural. The Congress, who acquiesced to every Muslim demand, while running after the mirage of Hindu-Muslim was also perversely communal.

The author probably never studied the holy quran but savarkar did

Savarkar was among the few Hindu leaders who had studied Islam. While still in the Cellular Jail, Andamans, Savarkar had read the Quran first in its English and subsequently Bengali and Marathi translations. Responding to the opinion of his Muslim friends that the real beauty of the Quran lies in its original, Savarkar asked them to read each page from the original and then translate it for his benefit into Hindi. As Savarkar describes, he heard them recite the Quran with great concentration and after keeping his mind clean and pure as a devout Muslim. In later life, Savarkar read several books written by Western authorities on the Quran. Savarkar’s deep study of Islam is evident from his numerous articles such as those on Kemal Pasha, Khilafat movement and various Islamic sects. Savarkar had learnt to read and write Urdu.

Did Savarkar hated Christians or Muslims?

Savarkar believed in universal brotherhood of man. In the first part of his autobiography he stated, ” I never myself hated nor did I allow others to hate English as Englishmen only as oppressors. Once India achieves its freedom we must forget any hatred for England. We are all creations of the same god.”

In his book describing harsh prison life – My Transportation for Life, Savarkar stated in 1923, ” I have no hatred in my heart for Muslim or Christian brothers or even for those living in tribes in primitive state. I do not even despise any of them. I oppose only that section of it vehemently which is oppressive and violent towards others.”
In the letter of 6 July 1920 he wrote to his brother from jail, ” We believe in an universal state embracing all mankind and wherein all men and women would be citizens working for and enjoying equally the fruits of this earth and this sun, this land and this light, which constitute the real Motherland and Fatherland of man. All other divisions are artificial though indispensable.”

What is Savarkar’s definition of a ‘Hindu’?
Savarkar defines a ‘Hindu’ thus:

“Everyone who regards and claims this Bharatbhumi from the Indus to the Seas as his Fatherland and Holyland is a Hindu”

you also quote mahan sonali ranade who calls a departed soul a pig (that Actually explains alot abt her view on hindutava) I dont want to tell you about economic reforms of atal bihari bajpayi because than you will feel ashamed of ur thinking but here are some economic programme of founder of hindutava 🙂

Savarkar advocated a sound and pragmatic economic programme. He elaborated his economic policy in his 1939 Presidential address to the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha session held at Calcutta (now Kolkata).
Savarkar’s economic policy may be summarized as follows:

Man does not live by bread alone. It is unwise to attribute all human behaviour to economic factors alone.

The industrial age should be welcomed. Although handicrafts have their role in national economy and should be encouraged, machines should do national production on a large scale.

Peasants and workers are the backbone of the society and should get reasonable share of national income, so that they can lead an average life, free from wants. Their villages need to be invigorated. Since they are part and parcel of the nation they should share the common duties and obligations.

The interest of both the Capital and the Labour should be subordinated to the interests of the Nation as a whole

The State would take every step to protect national industries from foreign competition.

Key industries, manufactures and such other items should be nationalized if the National Government can afford to do so and conduct them more efficiently than private enterprise. The same principle applies to agriculture.

All strikes and lockouts, which undermine and cripple national industries or production should be referred to State arbitration and settled or quelled if serious.

Private property, in general, should not be violated. In no case, the State should appropriate private property without reasonable recompense. Savarkar was totally against landlordism.

If everyone were the same the world would be a pathetic,lame place.
Marxist Utopian thinking kept aside, Hinduism does indeed accept heirarchy, but this is based on attributes and conscious determined acts.It accepts heirarchy upto a certain extent.
Everyone is not the same &Hinduism merely accepts what is natural.It doesn’t necessarily enforce it.The enforcement or imposition of values is a social problem, not a ‘dharmik’ one.
No Hindu would have a problem with non hindus praying to different gods either.
Progressive has become a cuss word these days.The ‘go with the flow’ ideology is naive.
In the internet age, a lot of myths about Hinduism are being shattered, so actually Hinduism is becoming more and more important & Hindus take more nuanced positions these days on their beliefs.
Please think a little bit before waving your red underwear.
Regards

http://twitter.com/neovasant neovasant

Another superficial post with left liberal interpretation of Hindutva/Hinduism and history as base. Most absurd line of argument is A, B, C.. did not include Savarkar in their works, hence he is not important.

http://twitter.com/gopimaliwal Gopi

What a waste of time n space…!

http://twitter.com/m_vijayakumar Vijay Kumar

@DelhiRIUM,

>> they refuse to talk and acknowledge the inherent secular nature of Hinduism

Secularism just says that one is free to hold any personal religious beliefs as long as you don’t violate rights of others. In this scheme of things, the Hindu religious/philosophical beliefs/assumptions is just one of the available options for a person to freely hold, advocate, propagate etc. Hinduism, like any other religion, is a set of religious/philosophical doctrines, beliefs, assumptions etc. Secularism allows for criticism of worship of any/all hindu deities and allows criticism of all/any underlying hindu philosophical basis/assumptions etc. Secularism is NOT the same as saying that one can choose any hindu deity (or any ‘deity” once you add it to hindu pantheon), as you seem to mistakenly assume.

http://twitter.com/DelhiRIUM DelhiRIUM

Thanks for your comment:
1) The main point of my post is to tell the reader that while Indian secularists are championing secularism against radicalism, the west actually says “secularism is radical”. Would appreciate your comments on this point.

2) Of course, Hinduism allows Hindus and non Hindus to criticise Hindu gods, symbols and values. That’s why I used the word “inherently”. So I feel that you have mistakenly assumed that I have mistakenly assumed something else.

Such criticism is being done by Hindu’s themselves from time as old as history, let alone others. Atheism, Agnosticim are Darshanas within our Philosophical system. I

It invites verification from all angles, and has always been done, it allows each Individual to hence to express his and maintain his own view.

This is the inherent within Hindusim,

… and also why not accept that different Deities and hierarchies of different deities so well respected within as a great value inherent within ? Of course this is unhallowed in some Abrahamic faiths which leads to their inherent intolerance, let alone acceptance.

Such internal criticism, freedom to maintain views contrary to what is said in a “certain book” is disallowed in some major Abrahamic faiths, and if and when it has been done, we know how all-hell break/broke loose.

without such inherent values, such varied freedom in religious discourse could not have been captured in its bosom for 1000s of years. without such inherent freedom India would not have allowed, not merely tolerated but accepted and gave shelter to many persecuted who came to seek shelter here.

Hence in a historical perspective, Hinduism needs no preaching of Secularism nor no separate mention of the word Secular is required in the context of Sanatana Dharma or hinduism, since its inherently plural, free of any bigotry and intolerance, freedom to think and express, maintain one’s own views (even contrary to any popular book) being its foundation.

http://twitter.com/sumanthbharatha Sumanth Sharma

The word Secular has been added through the Western world view, for a civilization which does not know of intolerance, and has always been plural and allowed for absolute Religious and spiritual freedom, this is like showing a torch to Sun.

the west needs it, since their philosophical systems are very narrow, in particular the two predominant abrahamic views which do not allow for any other view and worse are expansionist and intolerant in nature (history is a good teacher isn’t it).

Skanda

Nope , you are wrong. Hindu state did not give freedom to worship “any Hindu deity”, but the entire freedom for people to worship or not worship, to follow ANY faith or not follow. In books, secularism looks good but as you see in India, never works for simple political reasons – Hindu state was the one which could transcend those.

Subscribe to our mailing list

Like us on Facebook

Categories

Categories

Recent Comments

gk: Are you running some university where you gave yourself '100' level knowledge rating? If you have s…

gk: >>>>>So what? words get added,changed and removed as time goes on You really do not h…

Sekar Devaraj: You have to study more, your knowledge level is "0". Please study and comeback to discuss here.…